Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Dakota Constructors, Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the decision of the Hanson County Board of Adjustment that Dakota would need a conditional use permit (CUP) under a Hanson County ordinance in order to extract sand, gravel, and rock from the property at issue.In 2021, Dakota purchased the property: a quarry located in Hanson County that had operated under a state license since 1986 to mine sand, gravel, and rock. The ordinance took effect in 2000. Dakota Constructors submitted a CUP application but argued that it did not need a CUP because the operation of the quarry was a continuing prior nonconforming use. The Hanson County Board of Adjustment disagreed and granted the CUP application with specified conditions. The circuit court denied Dakota's ensuing petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dakota failed to show that the Board's reading of the word "extraction" was contrary to the ordinance, contrary to state statute, or otherwise wrong or erroneous. View "Dakota Constructors, Inc. v. Hanson County Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree manslaughter, holding that the circuit court did not err in excluding polygraph evidence in its sentencing consideration.Defendant, who pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter, sought to introduce evidence of a polygraph examination regarding his role in the crime prior to his sentencing hearing. The circuit court denied the request and sentenced Defendant to eighty years' incarceration with twenty years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered polygraph evidence. View "State v. Banks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court that it did not have statutory authority to terminate Father's parental rights against his wishes in the absence of an adoption, holding that S.D. Codified Laws 25-5A cannot be used to involuntarily terminate a parent's rights without a corresponding adoption.Mother filed a petition under chapter 25-5A seeking the involuntary termination of Father's parental rights, arguing that the termination was in the best interests of the parties' children and that Father's consent to the termination could not be waived. The circuit court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that chapter 25-5A cannot be used to involuntarily terminate a parent's parental rights. View "In re Interest of I.A.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant for second-degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity under S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-4.8, a statute that became effective during the pendency of his case. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a pretrial determination of statutory immunity under section 22-18-4.8 because the statute was substantive and not retroactive; (2) the circuit court's erroneous admission of certain testimony was not prejudicial; (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and therefore, the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated two appeals related to the circuit court's summary judgment rulings in the professional negligence lawsuit brought by Michael and Madelynn Hoven against Banner Associates, Inc. and remanded for the circuit court to dismiss the suit, holding that it was untimely pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13(1).The Hovens sued Banner for professional negligence. Banner moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Hovens' claims were barred by the relevant statute of limitations and the statute of repose. The circuit court granted summary judgment in part, holding (1) there were material issues of fact in dispute as to whether the statute of limitations had expired; and (2) there were material issues of fact in dispute on the Hovens' claims of fraudulent concealment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that S.D. Codified Laws 15-2A-3 was the only limitation period applicable to the Hovens' lawsuit and that S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13 did not apply; (2) it was undisputed that the Hovens' lawsuit was not commenced within six years from the date their cause of action accrued; and (3) therefore, the circuit court is directed on remand to dismiss the Hovens' negligence suit against Banner as untimely. View "Hoven v. Banner Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in this appeal concerning damage caused to an airplane owned by Plaintiff, holding that this Court had jurisdiction and that there was no error in the damages award and decision to award prejudgment interest.In the first appeal in this negligence case the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial on the limited issue of damages on the ground that the circuit court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on damages. On remand, the court awarded Plaintiff $131,735 in damages, prejudgment interest, and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court had appellate jurisdiction; (2) the circuit court did not err in the method it chose to calculate Plaintiff's damages; and (3) the circuit court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest. View "Wright v. Temple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Mother primary physical custody of the parties' two children in this case, holding that the circuit court's child custody determination was within the range of permissible choices and was supported by competent evidence.Mother and Father were never married and shared two children together. Father eventually petitioned for "Interim and Primary Custody, Child Support, and Paternity" determinations. Following a trial, the circuit court concluded that it would be in the children's best interests to grant Mother primary custody with Father having parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in declaring the S.D. Codified Laws 25-4-45.5 presumption to have been rebutted; and (2) did not give too much weight to its primary caretaker determination. View "Harwood v. Chamley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the South Dakota Life and Health Guaranty Association denying the protests brought by the South Dakota Bankers Benefit Plan Trust as to the Association's assessment schedule it established to cover an insolvent insurer's obligations, holding that the Trust was not liable to pay the contested assessments.In 2017, the Association, which covers impaired and insolvent insurers' obligations to their insureds by assessing Association members, assumed liability for the insolvent insurer at issue and established a five-year assessment schedule. The Trust paid three years of the five-year schedule but protested the requirement to pay the remaining two because they were assessed after the insolvent insurer's membership in the Association ended. The Association denied the protests. The South Dakota Division of Insurance's Office of Hearing Examiners reversed, determining that the Association lacked authority to assess the Trust for the last two assessments. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust was not liable to pay the Association's 2020 and 2021 assessments. View "S.D. Life & Health Guaranty Ass'n v. S.D. Bankers Benefit Plan Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court that Defendant's conduct violated the provisions of S.D. Codified Laws 22-3-5, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted as an accessory to aggravated assault for intentionally harboring or concealing a juvenile, N.I., in the commission of a felony. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing, among other things, that she could not have committed the crime because N.I. was charged as a juvenile under the rules of civil procedure and therefore did not commit the principal felony necessary to sustain the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an individual may be prosecuted, tried, and punished as an accessory to a crime under section 22-3-5 when the principal felony is based on the act of a juvenile, regardless of the status of any prosecution against that juvenile; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly concluded that Defendant's conduct violated the provisions of section 22-3-5. View "State v. Dutton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on seven counts of violating a no contact order, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for mistrial and judgment of acquittal.During the underlying trial, the alleged victim became emotional in front of the jury while testifying. Consequently, the circuit court recessed the jury during her testimony and ordered the victim not to communicate with anyone during the recess. The victim, however, violated the order by speaking to her mother. Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, determining that Defendant had not spoken to her mother about the case. When the victim returned to the stand she was unable to continue and the court recessed the trial for the day. Defendant again moved for a mistrial and for a judgment of acquittal, without success. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's mistrial and acquittal motions. View "State v. Shibly" on Justia Law